BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[icowden]

Fascinating story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkz8d2lpp0o

'My luggage was stolen while I was breastfeeding'​

In this tragic tale, an idiotic French woman decided that, whilst still on the check in side of the airport she would use the baby room to breastfeed her baby. So far so good.

Despite the room being designed to have room for people and their luggage, she decided to abandon her bags and leave them outside of the room where a chancer in a bucket hat made off with the unattended bags.

It gets better. This lady had a memory card in her bag with 10 years of family photographs on it which she has apparently NEVER backed up.

She wangs on that there is a big security issue at Gatwick Airport, seemingly unaware that the actual problem is massive culpable stupidity on her own part.

 

[First Aspect]

Stuoid person leaves luggage unattended in airport.

At least there wasn't a terrorist incident declared and all her belongings destroyed in a controlled explosion.

 

[First Aspect]

Any online 'authority' that can be edited by the public or which has partisan content creators is open to being manipulated to present a certain view. The fact that Wikipedia show the edits doesn't negate that it's presenting unbalanced content in some articles. We should treat it with the same scepticism we treat other outlets.

With respect, I find it odd that you are singling out the least worst option.

 

[Psamathe]

Any online 'authority' that can be edited by the public or which has partisan content creators is open to being manipulated to present a certain view. The fact that Wikipedia show the edits doesn't negate that it's presenting unbalanced content in some articles. We should treat it with the same scepticism we treat other outlets.

Although Wikipedia is actually more subject to controls than many realise with the general view "anybody can edit anything ...". Try going to eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump and make an edit.

Go to any less prominent page and edit and whilst your edit will appear immediately, internally it is added to a list of all edits to be scrutinised by volunteers. If you register, same but after you've made a fair number of edits that have proven reliable (ie not reverted) your username can be approved as Autopatrolled where your edits are not always scrutinised (ie not added to the list of edits requiring approval) - but your edits can still be reverted by others (threshold for this is "prolific".

And policies and controls on pages are constantly being adjusted depending on vandalism.

 

[CXRAndy]

View attachment 10843

How much is that going to help when children are taught by teachers men can become women

 

[Ian H]

Any online 'authority' that can be edited by the public or which has partisan content creators is open to being manipulated to present a certain view. The fact that Wikipedia show the edits doesn't negate that it's presenting unbalanced content in some articles. We should treat it with the same scepticism we treat other outlets.

They do much more than show the edits. [edit: as Psamathe says]